My wife is not my husband
By Prof Dr Sohail Ansari “ He is
not a liar who reconciles between people, conveying good messages and saying
good things.” (al-Bukhaari, Muslim)
My wife is not my husband
‘Deconstruction has lately gained currency since it very often
permeates field as diverse as architecture, theology, and geography. Yet the
use of deconstruction in a variety of contexts could be quite problematic’. I, for example, followed the basis of deconstruction
‘emerging from Derrida’s argument that people usually express their thoughts in
terms of binary oppositions’.
Life, it is difficult to know, was
funny or painful when I began calling my teacher not black instead of white; my
friend not enemy instead of a friend; and my uncle not short instead of tall;
and my spiritual leader not wicked instead of pious; and my son not father
instead of a son and finally my wife not husband instead of a wife.
Introduction
Relationships base the life of every
individual as humans are social beings. But conflicts are inevitable being in a
relationship. The face negotiation theory explains how cultural difference in
people influence in managing conflicts. The theory was formulated by Stella
Ting-Toomey, professor of human communication at California State University.
Toomey described that difference in handling the conflicts can be a part of
maintaing a ‘face’ in the society.
Face-Negotiation
Theory
The cultural differences in the
society shape the responses to conflicts in different societies. The theory
holds up the idea of maintaining a face according to their cultures. The face
is nothing but an identity, the persona we keep up in the society-a public
image. As face represents oneself in the society, the people display an
attitude which is desirable to them.
There are certain factors in
negotiating face. They are
§ Concern over self-face and others
faces. It is important to understand the significance of face for an individual
and how important is it to maintain a face which in turn will reflect on to the
others
§ People from a collectivistic culture
usually avoid or integrates the conflict while more individualistic people
dominates the conflict as to maintain an independent face in the society
§ Another factor in negotiating face
is status in the society which generates power. In Collectivistic society
people are born into certain status quo and their individuality is less
concerned. In a more individualistic society, people earn their power to live
in the society
An Important factor influencing a
person’s behaviour is the culture he belongs to. From his childhood, the person
lives in this perspective created by the culture. The conflict styles differ
with the culture and through socialising; the individual tends to reflect the
particular culture while negotiating a conflict. Generally there are two
aspects in which the conflict styles are classified. People belonging to
individualistic culture tries to maintain a face so as to preserve one’s own
face while in a collectivistic society, people maintains a face for the sake of
the society. Based on these dimensions, there are five types of conflict styles
1.
Domination– An individualistic approach to
make decisions by dominating or controlling
2.
Avoiding– A collectivistic approach of
staying away from the conflict
3.
Obliging– A collectivistic approach of
giving up
4.
Compromising– An individualistic approach to
negotiate to come to a solution
5.
Integrating– an individualistic approach to
work together to reach a solution
Critics of Face
Negotiation Theory
The western countries have an
individualistic culture (promote individual autonomous, responsibility and
achievement) which is greatly observed and followed. Whereas in Eastern
countries have a collective or group culture and they honor community. But
there are societies in these countries which follows another culture like
individualistic culture or collective culture vice-versa. So the generalisation
applied to the cultural classification is not practical in this context.
Application
Face negotiation can be applied in
the study of all types of interpersonal relationships and how it is applicable
across cultures.
Example
According to the Stella Ting-Toomey
“People face a conflict situation will differ from individualist culture and
collectivist culture. When an ordinary person in USA, followed the response to
a conflict will be self-preserving and dominating. At the same time for a
person who has migrated from a collective culture like china, South Korea,
Japan and Taiwan, the response reflects his/her culture (collective culture) to
avoid the conflict or oblige to the situation”.
The foundations of negotiation theory are
decision analysis, behavioral decision making, game theory, and negotiation analysis. Another classification of theoriesdistinguishes between Structural Analysis,
Strategic Analysis, Process Analysis, Integrative Analysis and behavioral
analysis of negotiations.
Face-negotiation
theory is a theory first proposed by Brown and Levinson
(1978) to understand how people from different cultures manage rapport and
disagreements. The theory posits "face", or
self-image, as a universal phenomenon that pervades across cultures. In
conflicts, one's face is threatened; and thus the person tends to save or
restore his or her face. This set of communicative behaviors, according to the
theory, is called "facework". Since people frame the situated meaning
of "face" and enact "facework" differently from one culture
to the next, the theory poses a cultural-general framework to examine facework
negotiation.
Background[edit]
Face-negotiation theory is primarily based on the research of
Brown and Levinson. In this theory, "face" is a metaphor for
self-image, which originates from two Chinese conceptualizations: lien and
mien-tzu. Lien is the internal moral face that involves shame, integrity,
debasement, and honor issues. Mien-tzu, on the other hand, is the external
social face that involves social recognition, position, authority, influence
and power.[1][2]
Erving Goffman situated "face" in contemporary Western research.[3] He noted that face is a concern for one's
projected image that is both immediate and spontaneous and is tied to the
dynamics of social interaction.[4]Correspondingly, "facework"
denotes actions taken to maintain consistency between the self and public line.
Further research by Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson on politeness suggests that the desire for face is a
universal concern.[5][6]
Ting-Toomey expands this thinking and conceptualizes face as an
individual's claimed sense of favorable social self-image in a relational and
network context.[7] Facework is defined as clusters of
communicative behaviors that are used to enact self-face and to uphold,
challenge/threaten, or support the other person's face.[2]
With these concepts and frameworks, Face-Negotiation Theory
investigates intercultural conflict styles. The perceived or actual conflict
differences revolve around three issues: content, relational, and identity.[8] Content conflict refers to the substantive
issues external to the individual involved. Relational conflict refers to how
individuals define, or would like to define, the particular relationship in
that particular conflict episode. Identity-based conflict concerns issues of
issues of identity confirmation-rejection, respect-disrespect, and
approval-disapproval.[9] In this way, identity issues are tided
closely to culture-based face-orientation factors. A face-threatening episode
is an identity expectancy violation episode. Thus, the Face-Negotiation Theory
views conflict, intercultural conflict in particular, as a situation that
demands active facework management from the two interdependent conflict
parties.
The theory has gone through multiple iterations since its
creation. There is a 1988 version of seven assumptions and 12 propositions,[7] a 1998 version of seven assumptions and 32
propositions,[2] and most recent the 2005 version of seven
assumptions and 24 propositions.[9]
Components[edit]
Assumptions[edit]
Face and facework are universal phenomena.[10] A Face-Negotiation Theory perspective
stresses the impact of culture on the situated meaning of face and the
enactment of facework. Thus, the theory assumes that:[9]
1.
Communication in all cultures is based on maintaining and
negotiating face.
2.
Face is problematic when identities are questioned.
3.
Differences in individualistic vs. collectivistic and small vs.
large power distance cultures profoundly shape face management.
4.
Individualistic cultures prefer self oriented facework, and
collectivistic cultures prefer other oriented facework.
5.
Small power distance cultures prefer an "individuals are
equal" framework, whereas large power distance cultures prefer a
hierarchical framework.
6.
Behavior is also influenced by cultural variances, individual,
relational, and situational factors.
7.
Competence in intercultural communication is a culmination of
knowledge and mindfulness.
Taxonomies[edit]
Face-Negotiation Theory primarily deals with five sets of
themes: face orientation or concerns, face movements, facework interaction
strategies, conflict communication styles, and face content domains.[2][7] In the 2005 version of theory, the five
thematic clusters are referred as "core taxonomies".[9]
Face orientations[edit]
The orientation of face determines the focus with which the face
negotiator will direct her or his attention and energy of the conflict
messages.[9] Because of different concerns, caused by
different underlying cultural values, face negotiators may orient towards
self-face (one's own image), other face (the other conflict party's image) or
mutual face (both parties' image and/or the image of the relationship).[7][11]
For example, in individualist cultures, such as the United States,
Germany, and Great Britain, there is great value on personal rights, freedoms
and the "do it yourself" attitude. In collectivist cultures such as Japan, Saudi Arabia, and
Colombia, place more value on "we" vs. "I". The needs of
the group outweigh the needs of the individual. It is interesting to note that
one third of the world lives in an individualist society, while the other two
thirds are identified with collectivist cultures.
Face orientation also involves the concept of power
distance. People from large power distance cultures accept unequal
power distributions, are reliant on established hierarchy, and understand that
rewards and sanctions are based on social position. People from small power
distance cultures value equal power distributions, symmetric relations, and
rewards and sanctions based on performance. The United States is an example of
a small power distance culture, while Japan embodies a large power distance
culture.
Drawing on research of Geert Hofstede, face-negotiation theory notes
that while individualism and power distance are two separate dimensions, they
are correlated. Highly individualistic cultures tend to be low in power
distance, and vice versa.[12]
Face movements[edit]
Face movement refers to the options that a negotiator faces in
choosing whether to maintain, defend and/or upgrade self-face versus other-face
in a conflict episode. There are four opportunities a mediator has in regards
to their concern for self-face, your personal image and other-face, the
counterpart's image of themselves that define face movements:
1.
If there is a high level of concern for both self-face and
other-face, the result is mutual-face protection.
2.
If there is a low level of concern for both self-face and
other-face, the result is mutual-face obliteration.
3.
If there is a high level of concern for self-face but a low
level of concern for other-face, the result is self-face defense.
4.
If there is a high level of concern for other-face but a low
level of concern for self-face, the result is other-face defense.
Ting-Toomey asserts that several conditions must be perceived as
severe in order for a negotiator to feel his face is threatened; the importance
of the culturally approved facework that is violated, feelings of mistrust
because of a large distance between cultures, the importance of the conflict
topic, the power distance between the two parties, and the perception of the
parties as outgroup members are all conditions which must be made salient for
face-threatening communication to occur.[9] Whether or not a person engages in a
conflict depends on how face-threatening the situation is perceived.
In an individualistic culture, the more self-face threatening
the conflict, the more likely the individual will engage in an attack. In a
collectivistic culture, where mutual-face concern is important, avoidance of
conflict may prevail in order for the situation to be defused. Collectivistic
communicators may also require a third-party negotiation to make progress in
finding a resolution.
Facework interaction strategies[edit]
On a broad level, individualistic cultures operate with a more
direct, low-context facework with importance placed on verbal communication and
nonverbal gestures for emphasis. Collectivistic cultures operate in a more
indirect, high context facework emphasizing nonverbal subtleties. There are
three prevalent facework strategies: dominating, avoiding, and integrating.
Dominating facework is characterized by trying to maintain a credible image
with the goal of winning the conflict. Avoiding facework attempts to preserve
harmony in the relationship by dealing with the conflict indirectly.
Integrating facework focuses on content resolution and maintaining the
relationship.[9]
Along the face concern/orientation dimension, facework is at
play before (preventative), during, and after (restorative) the situation.
Preventative facework is an attempt to minimize face-loss before the threat
occurs. Preventative strategies include credentialing, appealing for suspended
judgment, pre-disclosure, pre-apology, hedging, and disclaimers.[13] Collectivistic cultures tend to employ more
preventative strategies than individualistic cultures. Restorative facework
attempts to repair face that was lost. Restorative strategies include excuses,
justifications, direct aggression, humor, physical remediation, passive
aggressiveness, avoidance, and apologies.[13] Individualistic cultures are more likely to
use restorative facework than collectivistic cultures.
Facework differs from conflict styles by employing face-saving
strategies which can be used prior to, during, or after a conflict episode and
can be used in a variety of identity-threatening and identity-protection
situations. These strategies are focused on relational and face identity beyond
conflict goal issues. Conflict styles are specific strategies used to engage or
disengage from a conflict situation. Preventative and restorative face-work
strategies are typically employed when one's face is being threatened.
Conflict communication styles[edit]
Conflict style consists of learned behaviors developed through
socialization within one's culture. Rahim[14][15]based his classification of conflict
styles into two dimensions. The first dimension demonstrates the concern for
self, how important it is for the individual to maintain their own face or that
of their culture (this is rated on a high to low continuum) and the second is
concern for others, how important is it to the individual to help them maintain
their own face (also rated on a high to low continuum). The two dimensions are
combined to create five styles for dealing with conflict. The individual will
choose a style of handling conflict based on the importance of saving their
face and that of the face of the other.
1.
Dominating: One
person's position or goal above the other.
2.
Avoiding: Eluding the conflict
topic, the conflict party, or the conflict situation altogether.
3.
Obliging: High concern for the
other person's conflict interest above a person's own interest.
4.
Compromising: A
give-and-take concession approach in order to reach a midpoint agreement.
5.
Integrating: A
solution closure that involves high concern for one's self and high concern for
the other.
In 2000 Ting-Toomey, Oetzel, and Yee-Jung incorporated three
additional conflict communication styles to the original five.[16] These three have further enhanced conflict
communication across cultures.
1.
Emotional Expression-Articulating
a persons feelings in order to deal with and control conflict.
2.
Third Party Help-Resolving
conflicts by enlisting additional help to manage communication.
3.
Passive Aggressive-Reacting
to conflict in a roundabout way, placing blame indirectly.
Other researchers used a different way to group the conflict
tactics. Ting-Toomey (1983) grouped strategies into three categories of tactics
for handling conflict; integrative,distributive and passive-indirect.
Integrative conflict tactics incorporated integrating and
compromising styles and is reflective of mutual-face and the need for a
solution. Those who chose this tactic work with the other person involved in
the conflict to get the best possible solution for both parties. Examples of
Integrative tactics may include listening to the other, respecting their
feelings, and providing their own personal viewpoints in a manner that assists in
the negotiation.
Distributive conflict tactics use the dominating style of
handling conflict, and emphasizes the individuals own power over the other.
This style reflects self-face. Passive-indirect conflict tactics are consistent
with obliging and avoiding styles of handling conflict and reflects other-face.
Face content domains[edit]
Face content domains refer to the different topics an individual
will engage in facework on. Individuals have different face wants or face needs
in a diverse range of communicative situations.[9] There are six domains that an individual
will operate in:
1.
Autonomy-represents our need for
others to acknowledge our independence, self-sufficiency, privacy, boundary,
nonimposition, control issues, and our consideration of other's autonomy face
needs
2.
Inclusion-our need to be
recognized as worthy companions, likeable, agreeable, pleasant, friendly,
cooperative
3.
Status-need for others to
admire our tangible and intangible assets or resources: appearance,
attractiveness, reputation, position, power, and material worth
4.
Reliability-need
for others to realize that we are trustworthy, dependable, reliable, loyal, and
consistent in words and actions
5.
Competence-need
for others to recognize our qualities or social abilities such as intelligence,
skills, expertise, leadership, team-building, networking, conflict mediation,
facework, and problem-solving skills
6.
Moral-need for others to
respect our sense of integrity, dignity, honor, propriety, and morality
Theoretical
propositions[edit]
The heart of Face Negotiation Theories are 24 propositions. They
are based on the seven assumptions and five taxonomies that have been proven in
numerous cases and studies. They describe facework on three levels of
communication: cultural, individual, and situational.
1.
Individualistic cultures predominantly express self-face
maintenance interests than collectivistic culture members do.
2.
Collectivistic cultures are more concerned with other-face
maintenance than members of individualistic cultures.
3.
Members of collectivist cultures are more concerned with
mutual-face maintenance than individualistic cultures.
4.
Members of individualistic cultures predominantly use direct and
dominating facework strategies in conflict
5.
Collectivistic cultures tend to use avoidance strategies more
than individualistic cultures do.
6.
Members of collectivistic cultures use more integrative facework
strategies than individualistic culture members do.
7.
Individualistic cultures prefer dominating/competing conflict
styles more than collectivistic cultures do.
8.
Individualistic cultures use more emotionally expressive
conflict styles than collectivistic cultures do.
9.
Individualistic cultures use more aggressive conflict styles
than members of collectivistic cultures.
10.
Collectivistic cultures use more avoidance techniques than
members of individualistic cultures.
11.
Collectivistic cultures use more obliging conflict styles than
members of individualistic cultures.
12.
Collectivistic cultures utilize compromising styles of conflict
more than members of individualistic cultures.
1.
Independent self is positively associated with self-face
concern.
2.
Interdependent self is positively associated with
other-/mutual-face concern.
3.
Self-face maintenance is associated with dominating/competing
conflict style.
4.
Other-face maintenance is associated with avoiding/obliging
conflict style.
5.
Other-face maintenance is associated with
compromising/integrating conflict style.
6.
Independent self–construal is associated with
dominating/competing conflict style.
7.
Interdependent self-construal is associated with
obliging/avoiding.
8.
Interdependent self-construal is associated with
compromising/integrating.
9.
Bi-construal is associated with compromising/integrating.
10.
Ambivalent is associated with neglect/third-party.
1.
Individualist or independent-self personalities tend to express
a greater degree of self-face maintenance concerns and less other-face
maintenance concern in dealing with both ingroup and outgroup conflicts
situations.
2.
Collectivist or interdependent-self personalities express a
greater degree of other-face concerns with ingroup members and a greater degree
of self-face maintenance concerns with outgroup members in intergroup conflict
situations.
Intercultural
facework competence[edit]
Reflecting on the final assumption, intercultural facework
competence consists of another component of face-negotiation theory. Facework
competence is conceptualized as an optimal integration of knowledge,
mindfulness and communication skills in managing self's and other's
face-related concerns.[2] To act competently in an intercultural
conflict episode, the theory posits that individuals have to enhance their
cultural knowledge and mindfulness in applying context-sensitive facework
interaction skills.
Knowledge dimension[edit]
Knowledge here refers to the process of in-depth understanding
of certain phenomenon via a range of information gained through conscious learning
and personal experiences. Building block concepts include: (1)
individualism-collectivism, (2) power distance. (3) two contrastive
"self/face" models, and (4) facework communication styles.[2]
Mindfulness dimension[edit]
Mindfulness means attending to one's internal assumptions,
cognitions and emotions and simultaneously attuning attentively to the other's
assumptions, cognitions and emotions while focusing the five senses.[17] To be mindful of intercultural facework
differences, we have to learn to see the unfamiliar behavior from a fresh
context.[10] Thus, on a general level, mindfulness
demands creative thinking and living.
Interaction skills[edit]
Interaction skill refers to our abilities to communicate
appropriately, effectively and adaptively in a given situation. The five
interaction skills that can transform the knowledge and mindfulness dimensions
to a concrete level are: mindful listening, mindful observation, facework
management, trust-building and collaborative dialogue.[18]
Applications[edit]
As an intercultural communication theory, face-negotiation
theory was first tested in and applied to the field of intercultural training
and conflicts. However, researchers from other areas also find this theory
applicable and relevant. Recent applications and examinations of the theory
include following studies.
Intercultural
conflict training[edit]
One direct application of face-negotiation theory is the design
of intercultural conflict training frameworks. Part of the objective of
face-negotiation theory, according to Ting-Toomey, is in fact to translate the
theory into a viable framework for mindful intercultural conflict training.[10]
More specifically, intercultural conflict training revolves
around international business negotiation, intercultural conflict mediation,
managing intercultural miscommunication, and developing intercultural conflict
competencies. Adapting Face-Negotiation Theory, and also in combination with
various communication researches such as Critical Incident, Intergroup
Negotiation Simulation etc., Ting-Toomey designed a detailed three-day training
session. Agenda outline, along with in class activities, lecture themes, and
exercises, is provided in her design as well.
Face
concerns in interpersonal conflict[edit]
This study by the author of the theory Stella Ting-Toomey and,
Department of communication and Journalism at the University of New Mexico,
John G. Oetzel was done in order to discover if face was indeed a factor in
determining "culture's influence on conflict behavior" (Ting-Toomey
& Oetzel, 2003). There were 768 people from four different countries who
partook in the study. The cultures represented were China, Germany, Japan, and
the United States. China and Japan representing the collectivist countries and
Germany and the United States as the individualist countries. Each contributor
was given a survey in which they were to explain interpersonal conflict.[19]The largest findings are as follows.
1.
"Cultural individualism-collectivism had direct and
indirect effects on conflict styles."[19]
2.
"Independent self-construal related positively with
self-face and interdependent self-construal related positively with
other-face."[19]
3.
"Self-face related positively with dominating conflict
styles and other-face related positively with avoiding and integrating
styles."[19]
4.
"Face accounted for all of the total variance explained
(100% of 19% total explained) in dominating, most of the total variance explained
in integrating (70% of 20% total explained) when considering face concerns,
cultural individualism-collectivism, and self-construals."[19]
Face and
facework in conflicts with parents and siblings[edit]
This study implemented by the author of this theory Stella
Ting-Toomey, John Oetzel, Martha Idalia Chew-Sanchez, Richard Harris, Richard
Wilcox, and Siegfried Stumpf observed how facework in conflict with parents and
siblings is affected by culture, self-concept, and power distance. There were
449 people from four different countries and cultures that participated.
Germany, Japan, Mexico, and the United States were the countries used in the
study. The survey looked at 3 apprehensions of face and 11 behaviors of
"facework". The results are as follows.
1.
"Self-construals had strong effects on face concerns and
facework with independence positively associated with self-face and dominating
facework and interdependence positively associated with other- and mutual-face
and integrating and avoiding facework behaviors."[20]
2.
"Power distance had small, positive effects on self-face,
other-face, avoiding facework, and dominating facework."[20]
3.
"National culture had small to medium effects with
individualistic, small power distance cultures having more self-face and
mutual-face and using more dominating and integrating facework and less
avoiding facework."[20]
4.
"Germans have more self-face and used defending more than
U.S. Americans."[20]
5.
"Japanese used more expression than Mexicans."[20]
6.
"Individuals in conflict with parents were more likely to
use respect and expression and less likely to use aggression, pretend, and
third party than individuals in conflict with siblings."[20]
Face
negotiation with mothers[edit]
Motherhood of the Construction of "Mommy Identity" –
Heisler & Ellis Face Negotiation Theory suggests that, "USA culture
simultaneously encourages connection and autonomy among individuals."[21] Mothers do not want to be vulnerable so
there is a "face" that is developed in the culture of mothers.
Heisler and Ellis did a study on the "face" and reasons for face in
motherhood. The results portrayed that the main reasons for keeping "face"
in a culture of mothers are:
1.
Acceptance and approval: There is a fear of criticism and
rejection by others. There is the avoidance face which deflects others
attention. Acceptance face attracts attention.
2.
Personal Reasons: There are many internal pressures that mothers
face. These include the guilt that they do not spend enough time with their
children, insecurities and values they have are not being in met, and their
self-esteem is low because of the fear of judgment.
3.
Mentoring/helping others: Mothers put on a face in order to appear
as a good mother figure to younger mothers that look up to them. There are
cultural expectations that can contribute to personal expectations for how
mothers should act. Women's thoughts on mothering are not their own original
ideas. They take on a lot of societal pressures. An example would be, if a
mother's child acts poorly in public, it makes the mother look bad.
Motherhood and "face": Results from the same study
showed that mothers participate in "Mommy face work." Depending on
who they are talking to or interacting with. Mothers said to put on their
highest face with friends, spouses, mothers and other family members.
Physician
communication in the operating room[edit]
Kristin Kirschbaum applied face-negotiation theory to the health communication context, and specifically in the operating
room environment.[22] In the research, a survey was administered
to anesthesiologists and surgeons at a teaching hospital in the southwestern
United States to measure three variables commonly associated with
face-negotiation theory: conflict-management style, face concern, and
self-construal. The results strongly support the theory, and significant
positive correlations were found between independent self-construal and
self-face concern for anesthesiologists and surgeons. Specific to this health
communication context, the research shows differences between the two groups of
operating-room physicians: surgeons are potentially more other-face oriented
and that anesthesiologists are potentially more independently oriented.
Further, both anesthesiologists and surgeons recognize the importance of
collaboration as surgical team members.
The survey also finds that specific terms were contextually
inappropriate for this population, e.g. the terms pride, dignity, or
credibility demonstrated a need for error correlation. This suggests unique
considerations of language. Along this line of thinking, the research
recommends physician communication training to address both unique language
considerations and different orientations to face concern and self-construal.
Safe
sex negotiation[edit]
Gust Yep, noticing the potential vulnerability and emotional
volatility of sexual interaction, applied face-negotiation theory to the safe
sex negotiation context.[23]
The study integrates various components of face-negotiation
theory, and eight propositions are derived from empirical testing in intimate
communication scenarios including East-West romantic dyads. The research is
based on preliminary observations on personal interviews with two Asian women,
aiming to predict intimate communication patterns between Asian women and
Euro-American men. Specifically, low-high context and
individualism-collectivism frameworks are used to draw the eight propositions.
Conclusion and criticism[edit]
Face negotiation theory addresses intercultural communication on
cultural, individual, and inter-relational levels. Individualistic and
collectivistic cultures will have different methods of maintaining face and
resolving conflict. What comes naturally to people from one culture may not
seem an appropriate communication style to individuals from another culture.
Nonetheless, criticism revolves around the logical consistency
of the theory. Precisely, face-negotiation theory is fundamentally based on the
differing perceptions of individualistic and collectivist cultures. However,
concerns show that this cultural dimension may not fully explain the perceived
differences. Also, the theory's reliance on politeness framework may be too
general to capture the face-concern exist that are not identified by the
researchers.[24] Therefore, the theory's application and
integration of politeness research might warrant further reflection and
consideration.
Comments
Post a Comment